Three things have contributed to my summer of 2024: readings, including ‘Friends, Lovers, and The Big Terrible Thing’ (2022) by Friends star Matthew Perry; watching the exceptional TV series ‘The Bear’ (2022+) centered on a Chicago restaurant and its crew; and following the US elections like a hawk. These three activities have a link.
Matthew Perry’s tragic story drew my attention to the ‘attachment theory’ developed by two 20th-century psychologists, John Bowlby (1907-1990) and Mary Ainsworth (1913-1999).
According to this well-established and accepted model, a child’s interactions with caregivers in its first two to three years shape its sense of security and influence its social and emotional development throughout life. It is a valuable, albeit unsettling, contribution to the nature-versus-nurture debate.
Secure attachment, formed when caregivers are responsive to a child's needs at stressful times during these early years, leads to healthy relationships and emotional stability. Approximately two-thirds of the population benefits from such privilege.
The remaining third, including Mr. Perry, who is open about his attachment issues, is subject to one of three categories of insecure attachment resulting from inconsistent or neglectful caregiving. Insecure attachment leads to anxiety, the avoidance of social relationships, and emotional regulation problems.
These deep psychological forces form a pillar of ‘The Bear.’ They are most prominently featured during a chaotic family Christmas dinner in an extraordinary episode entitled ‘Fishes’ during which the audience experiences the same raw emotions as in ‘Blackhawk Down‘ (2001). The celebrations reveal the matriarch’s dysfunction, with its ravaging impact on her children blowing up on screen.
Due to its inescapable origin, attachment theory is relevant to all social interactions, including in the context of leadership. Research establishes similarities between followers (children) and leaders (parents/caregivers): ‘Followers/children turn to the caregiver/leader in times of distress for comfort, safety, and security.’ Thus, ‘leaders fulfill an evolutionary basic need for protection.’
In politics, leaders of all sides have exploited these dynamics by infantilizing their constituencies and moving the essence of the political debate from ‘intellectual’ to ‘emotional.’ By instilling primal emotions such as fear or anger, they trigger a search for attachment and gladly position themselves as a caregiver. Politicians, like parents, may be forgiven for their deep flaws, provided they guarantee protection against perceived threats. This represents nothing else than the expression of survival instinct.
When it comes to the workplace, attachment types have a demonstrable impact on many facets, including leadership effectiveness, job preferences, and work relationships. The first years of one’s life turn out to play a disproportionate role in anyone’s career and its progression – a disturbing form of determinism.
In life, politics, and management, psychology, more so than cash, is king.
Comments